Debate on President's Address

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad for this opportunity to thank the President for her speech which was "a breath of fresh air", and I hope to add value to the debate on two pressing issues of the day – immigration and jobs – which many hon Members have already spoken on.

The President’s speech has highlighted many of the concerns of the Singaporeans who generally feel that the current socio-economic policies are not in their favour and are looking for change.

In particular, they wish to know, why there are seemingly fewer good jobs for Singaporeans while the immigrant workforce has grown rapidly over the last two decades. Does it mean there is discrimination against Singaporeans? Why are there not enough skilled Singaporeans to take up the good jobs in the new industries as claimed, despite having our "world-ranking" Universities? Are there no corrective actions taken to increase the number of suitably qualified Singaporeans in areas where we are lacking? Why are Singaporeans paying higher and higher taxes when there are 40% of immigrants in our workforce whose taxes should have helped to reduce the tax burden? Do we have a net gain in tax revenue after deducting all the infrastructural and social costs incurred in supporting these foreigners?

Unable to get satisfactory answers to the above, many Singaporeans have chosen to believe that the current immigration policy is a bad deal for them and for Singapore.

I credit the Government for responding promptly to the Singaporeans' message. Acknowledging the people's wish for this Parliament to work together for better solutions, the Prime Minister has installed my esteemed colleague, Mr Pritam Singh, as the Leader of Opposition. Over the course of the next few years, we look forward to more information and resources provided to the Opposition for it to function as an effective voice and idea-generator.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Progress Singapore Party, PSP, is a pro-Singaporean, pro-Singapore party. Noting the widespread resentment and objections of our countrymen, we recommend immediate actions be taken to restore the balance of interests between the Singaporeans and the foreigners in our country. We think that our Government might have overlooked the fact that our country is a global city-state and not a global city within a larger state. New Yorkers, for example, can choose to sell their properties, pocket the gains and move to another city in the US. But Singaporeans have nowhere to go without leaving the country.

It is disconcerting to have many of our countrymen live outside Singapore in Johor and Batam while we are housing more than two million foreigners on our island at the same time. Surely, more consideration can be given to Singaporeans who are citizens of our sovereign city-state. We are not being xenophobic or nativist because we have a long tradition of accepting foreigners into our society. In fact, many of us have fond memories of the old foreign talents who have trained and helped us to "eat other people's lunch" and "not to take away our lunch".

Many of them have contributed significantly to our nation-building. From Dr Albert Winsemius, the Dutch economic consultant who worked closely with Dr Goh Keng Swee to develop our economy, to the many unsung heroes like Mr Peter John Bowyer, a British citizen who set up the computer centre at the Singapore Polytechnic, transferred his skills to the locals and then left quietly after the job was done; and Mr John Kovak, my General Paper teacher from New Zealand who planted the idea "the citizen of the world" in my head and coached my school's rugby team. We are very grateful to those foreign talents from the good old days.

The Government, however, had introduced a different brand of foreign talent to us from the turn of the millennium. As a high-profile manifestation of that policy, Mr John Olds was appointed the CEO of DBS Bank in August 1998. At that time, I remembered a senior Japanese banker had called me and commented, "Leong-san, it’s like having a foreigner to run Mitsubishi Bank in Japan. It is unthinkable!".

Mr Speaker, Sir, in my heart, I had supported the appointment of John Olds in 1998. However, I am deeply disappointed now because 22 years later after his appointment, DBS is still without a homegrown CEO. The current financial industry is very different from the time I started my career at the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation in 1986 when "localisation" was strongly advocated and supported by the Monetary Authority of Singapore. During those times, common conversations among my senior colleagues were "so and so has taken over or is slated to take over the top job at such and such global bank". Today, my fellow countrymen are not seeing localisation and have to guard their current positions zealously.

We all agree that to protect jobs is the top priority.  Personally, I regard jobs as the foundation of human dignity. If a breadwinner is unemployed over a prolonged period of time, a multitude of undesirable social outcomes will follow. Dr Ang Yong Guan, the former President of the Singapore Psychiatric Association, has said that "economic problems contribute to much of the mental menace we see in our society today". So many social problems can be solved by organising ourselves differently in our economic relationships with one another and in relation to foreigners.

After two decades of rapid immigration growth, the foreigner's share of our population stands at about 40% today. As a result, one can expect the group dynamics at the workplace to have changed drastically and we must take the rumblings from the ground about Singaporeans being discriminated against seriously.

The recent announcement by MOM that there are now over 1,200 companies on the watch-list of the Fair Consideration Framework is one more confirmation of discrimination taking place at the workplace. This phenomenon is hard to swallow because Singaporeans are being discriminated against in our own country. Without stricter regulation, this situation is unlikely to improve as foreigners increase further as a share of our total population. Currently, there are about four foreigners to six Singaporeans in the workforce. But, if the population will to reach 10 million, it is estimated that there will be six foreigners to four Singaporeans. While the 10 million population is not a Government's target, it may still be reached eventually unless immigration is slowed down substantially.

As we are entering unchartered territory, we should give ourselves more time to assess and ascertain the full impact of an outsized foreigner population. We have just been made to pay very dearly by a black swan event – the COVID-19 pandemic – as we try to stop the widespread infection at the dormitories for foreign workers. In the planning of our country's future, it would be wise not to assume that COVID-19 is the worst possible scenario. There may be other risks related to immigration that we cannot foresee.

Mr Speaker, Sir, PSP is a strong supporter of an open economy and society and we believe that the Government must have good reasons to push for the foreign talent model. However, the Government can perform better in its communications. Our foreign talent model is a "free flow of people" model, just like the exporter model, which is based on the "free flow of goods" and the financial centre model, which is based on the "free flow of capital", which we have successfully implemented in the past.

These models can help us attain competitive advantages but there is always a need to balance the conflicts of the foreign and domestic interests in each of them. The foreign talent model which involves the competition for jobs in our own territory is especially sensitive. The Government should provide more timely data to obtain the buy-in for the strategy. For example, regular disclosure on PMET statistics broken down into Citizen and Permanent Resident categories and details of the intra-company transfers under the various Free Trade Agreements would be very useful. Without clearer data, Singaporeans cannot have an informed discussion on whether the existing foreign talent model is benefiting us.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the immediate future, we recommend decisive actions to reduce new work pass approvals and renewals in order to channel more existing jobs to Singaporeans. Despite the Government's good efforts, it is difficult to create good jobs in a short period of time and existing jobs are still the best opportunities for employing our people. Going forward, we need to tweak the foreign talent model to improve prospects for Singaporeans while building Singapore's competitive edge.

Borrowing from the experience of the Offshore and Onshore Banks in the early 1980s, we propose the designation of a group of Offshore Companies which have products and services that are sold predominantly overseas and Singaporeans do not yet have the skills to produce. They should also satisfy minimum capital and business spending requirements. We can allow Offshore Companies a freer hand in attracting talents from all over the world provided they uphold the non-discrimination principle towards Singaporeans and follow the minimum salary requirements for Employment and Social Pass Holders.

For all the other companies which we shall categorise as Onshore Companies, we recommend tightening our MOM regulations and procedures to achieve better outcomes for Singaporeans. First and foremost, we stipulate that Singaporeans must be well-represented in the top management and human resource function to ensure that the procedures are followed properly.

Second, we apply a foreigner-to-citizen ratio cap to all Onshore companies and their business and functional departments. This allows us to strengthen the Singaporean Core in our economy and in all the important professions.

An over-presence of foreign PMETs in a particular profession, for example Infotech, may lead to the hollowing out of our locals from that profession in the long run and we will end up lacking crucial skills to run our country and economy in the future.

Third, we reinstate localisation as an important key performance indicator. We should stipulate that there is a succession plan to replace each foreign manager at the end of his visa period. Further visa extension can only be granted if that manager is due for promotion and his previous position is taken up by a Singaporean.

Fourth, we should protect entry-level jobs for our new graduates and give them the opportunities to learn and to acquire the necessary skills. We should require foreign PMETs to have longer working experience before they are allowed to join our workforce.

Last but not least, we would like to stress that citizenship is sacrosanct to Singaporeans who are justifiably concerned about the erosion of national identity and the dilution of our citizenship. Since we are talking about economic relationships, there is no need to put citizenship into the equation. Citizenships should only be awarded to Permanent Residents who have stayed here for a long time and have passed a stricter set of naturalisation criteria. We also recommend that a Citizens' Commission be set up to oversee the award of citizenships.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, all our recommendations above are in support of what the President has said, "As masters of our own land, Singaporeans must have confidence in the rights and privileges of citizenship". The PSP believes that this Parliament must serve the interests and protect the sovereign rights of our people. We will stand-by the Government if it decides to take any decisive action needed to achieve that. We assure you that PSP will uphold this Parliament as a Singaporean Parliament and not a partisan Parliament. Mr Speaker Sir, I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before my speech proper, I would like to declare my interest as I work in the financial sector and I work in a bank that I am proud to say has a strong Singaporean Core.

Sir, I would like to speak on our foreign manpower policy, essentially, in two areas: firstly, jobs that Singaporeans do not want; and, secondly, jobs that Singaporeans want.

Let me start with jobs that Singaporeans do not want. We have always depended on foreign migrant labour in sectors like construction, manufacturing and services in jobs that Singaporeans would not want to do, either due to the work conditions, low remunerations or others.

In particular, in construction sector, we have something like 341,000 foreign workers out of the workforce of 457,000; or 75% of the construction labour force. Similarly, in the cleaning and some manufacturing sectors, there are high numbers of foreign workers.

The pleasant reality is that we have always enjoyed very low unemployment in Singapore and that there are always other better jobs available for Singaporeans. Given the limited size of our local workforce and that we are perpetually in a tight labour market situation, especially in the lower wage sectors, companies in these industries would have to look to foreign labour to meet their workforce needed.

Our manpower policy facilitated that, but with a series of quotas and foreign workers’ levies to keep demand within tolerable levels, both physically and socially. We have lived with this system for many years and it has helped grow our economy and enabled us to press ahead with the massive infrastructure buildup – the MRT, housing, ports, airports, hospitals, industrial facilities and many others. But two major incidents or events have brought into focus our foreign workers policy – how we take care and manage the workers as well as the numbers and our dependence of foreign labour in Singapore.

Firstly, of course, is the little India riot on 8 December 2013. In the aftermath, a Committee of Inquiry (COI) was formed and the COI report recommended a series of measures, such as the provision of self-contained dormitories that come with better amenities on site, tighter regulatory framework, among the many measures.

The second incident is, of course, the recent major COVID-19 outbreak at the foreign workers’ dormitories. The high transmissibility among the migrant workers at the dormitories led to a massive response and the mobilisation of resources within our system to prevent the further spread of the virus to the rest of the almost 400,000 workers at the dormitories. Many of the workers needed to be decanted from their existing dormitories to provide segregation and to reduce density so as to minimise the risk of further spread. The entire response has taken a heavy toll on our system and, of course, exerted a high price.

The steep infection rate at the dormitories once again brought to attention the living conditions of the foreign workers and as well calls for Singapore to rethink its reliance and high dependency on migrant manpower.

Following the Little India Riot COI report, there were deliberate efforts to site the purpose-built dormitories away from the residential estates so as to minimise any disamenities to the neighbourhoods. In the process, it has also reduced the visibility of the foreign workers to the public.

But the recent COVID-19 outbreak has, once again, brought the issue of migrant workers back into the limelight. Many Singaporeans were reminded or some were surprised at the sheer numbers of migrant labour in our workforce.

We have, in the past, reviewed our foreign migrant manpower policy on a number of occasions. Besides during the Little India Riot COI, the last major review on the foreign workers policy was in 2010 by the Economic Strategies Committee or ESC. The ESC recommended that we moderate the growth and manage the dependence on the foreign workforce through a phased increase in foreign worker levies and, in tandem, funding support for productivity investments. The rationale for this approach was that foreign labour should not be too accessible to companies as the companies would have little incentive to invest in productivity improvements.

The outbreak in the dormitories highlighted further unanticipated costs in our reliance of foreign labour. So, the overall real costs of foreign workers may not be as low as we have earlier envisaged, both financial and social. In addition, the outbreak also reminded us that we need to quickly improve the living condition of the dormitories and, of course, these enhancements will also add further costs to businesses.

So, how can we reduce our dependence on foreign labour? What is an acceptable number, both physically and socially? Does the cost-benefit analysis still makes sense to have such large numbers?

Do not get me wrong. I am not about say let us just cut migrant worker numbers to a certain lower level. It would have far reaching implications and impact on our businesses and industries and also on our efforts to build capabilities and capacities in both the economic and social infrastructures.

When I spoke to a number of people in the construction industry to seek views on how we can we reduce our reliance, almost everyone was concerned about what I am about to say or ask the Government to do. For example, would I be asking for a steep cut in the numbers of migrant workers?

Well, I am fully cognisant of the realities and that there are no quick fixes. I get it that there is really not much we can do and nothing much can change in the short term. Our industries, especially the construction sector, would not be able to fulfil their contracts if they are unable to get the sufficient workers they need. We continue to need high numbers of migrant labour workers for our current and upcoming projects, such as the MRT, the recently announced RTS, HDB housing projects. Even our climate change mitigation projects will also need workers there to help us build them.

So, if we cannot do much in the short term, what can we do in the medium to long term? Let me start with productivity improvements, specifically, the construction sector again.

There were a number of attempts in the past to improve productivity. I read the report on construction productivity by the Singapore Contractors Association done in December 2016 which detailed measures to improve productivity performance. In the report, it also highlighted the difficulties for firms to invest long term to enhance productivity, given the nature of the businesses where construction companies would tender competitively for contracts, not knowing whether they would win them.

Faced with this unknown of whether they would have work to do ahead of them, contractors would be reluctant to invest in productivity measures in a significant way as they are unsure whether the investment costs can be fully recovered. Large companies can afford to take a longer term view, but not for smaller companies which are just struggling to make ends meet, given the competitive nature of the business. The market would not be able to sort out itself to work towards productivity. So, again, the Government has to come in.

The tender system for public construction projects has to change, with greater scores weightage to tenderers who use more productive construction methods and lesser dependence of migrant workers. These are not new ideas. We have talked about them before. But it has to be well perpetuated and carried out with great insistence to change contractors’ modus operandi.

The other possible radical moves are to identify firms that have invested significantly in productivity improvements and invite them early in the projects to work with planners, architects and engineers on more efficient construction processes that can be less labour intensive.

It will require a mindset shift in the way we look at contract tenders and how we overcome the value-for-money governance. We can always start something as a pilot, perhaps via a “sandbox” approach and, thereafter, finetune the process for greater implementation. The tender price may well be higher. But we can take this as a price discovery exercise to know how contractors will actually cost a project that involves less migrant labour.

On the demand side, we can also do more to reduce the overall demand for migrant labour. We should be more discerning in evaluating if some of our major construction projects should go ahead. Can we do without it? Is it wasteful on resources and materials? What comes to mind are the collective sales or en bloc developments that we always hear about.

It is actually wasteful to demolish a building that is still in good working condition, only to build a replacement one that is quite similar. Besides consuming a significant number of migrant workers, it is also not environmentally friendly from a resource and sustainability standpoint.

We should further tighten the criteria for en bloc development and only allow projects to go ahead for buildings that are much older or there are major changes to the land use, such as intensifying its use through the Gross Floor Area (GFA) adjustment.

We should also scrutinise carefully our public projects and plan more judiciously. For example, in our neighbourhood, we have a Secondary school that went through a major upgrade, only to announce a few years later that the school would be merged with another one and to be relocated.

Sir, COVID-19 has substantially changed the world, our way of life, the way we conduct businesses in the future and rebalancing the risk-reward trade-offs and many others.

One sector that has been most impacted is aviation. We expect air travel to be much reduced post-COVID-19 and may never recover to its previous levels. Airlines may consolidate and hub at cheaper locations and we may never be able to bring back again the major airlines that have relocated out of Changi Airport hub during this period.

So, under this new operating landscape, should we still go ahead with the massive T5 project? Are our assumptions and parameters still valid in the new permanently changed setting? Are the risks now too high to go ahead with this massive investment? Can we work within our existing four terminals, regenerate new value propositions and optimise what we already have with the terminals and the set-up? We can perhaps still go ahead with the new runway but do we need another terminal building?

I hope the Government will review the decision because such mega projects also consume high numbers of migrant workers and crowd out the more urgent demands by other construction projects.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will now move on to jobs that Singaporeans want.

One of the key hallmarks of Singapore’s economic success is our human resource and the availability of skilled manpower and talents to our businesses. Our approach has always been to maximise the potential and opportunities for our local workforce and complement it by allowing some external manpower to strengthen our competitiveness to the extent that it helps create growth and jobs for Singaporeans.

Indeed, Singapore is able to seize additional growth opportunities beyond the size potential of our domestic workforce because we are able to leverage on external manpower resource. This makes good sense, especially when we are in a positive growth cycle where demand for manpower is high and the domestic labour market remains tight.

However, in a recessionary economic environment like what we are in today where we are increasingly seeing a slack in the labour market, this lever of external foreign manpower can now be used to manage our domestic unemployment and to nudge employers to hire more locally available workers. We should never feel apologetic about that. We have done that in past economic downturns, such as during the Global Financial Crisis in 2008 and 2009 where we also reduced the Employment Passes and S Passes.

Hence, I welcome the MOM announcements last week to tighten up our Employment Passes and S Passes, in particular, to step up scrutiny on those employers that have not been responsive to Government efforts to recruit more Singaporean PMETs. This can be a more an effective measure than raising the qualifying salaries.

These measures are necessary steps in response to the very weak labour market that we are in today and the likelihood of rising local retrenchments in the months ahead as the Jobs Support Scheme tapers off.

But make no mistake about it. Notwithstanding these adjustments, we are still one of the most open economies in the world where cross-border manpower flows are concerned. About one-third of our labour force are foreigners. We have about 194,000 Employment Pass holders and 200,000 S Pass holders working in Singapore, not a small number at all.

So, I disagree with The Business Time’s headline last Friday that said MOM's latest announcements may put our financial hub aspirations at risk.

Firstly, Singapore will still be among the most open financial centres in the world including in terms of top talent flows and foreign manpower accessibility. Two weeks ago, MAS revealed that non-citizens account for about 30% of our workforce in the financial sector. And for senior management roles, more than half are non-Singaporeans. There are not many major financial centres that allow this level of openness.

Global institutions choose to set up presence in Singapore not just because of our foreign manpower policy, but also of our many other very compelling attributes. Among others, Singapore is the few remaining Triple-A rated jurisdictions in the world. We are reputed for the excellent global connectivity, the depth and liquidity in our capital markets; sound regulation, integrity and enforceability of our judicial system; and also, importantly political and social stability.

We must therefore be self-assured that from time to time we would necessarily need some re-calibration to our manpower flows in response to the cycles in the labour markets. More importantly, we need to focus on the outcomes; and that is – have we been able to develop our local workforce to take on those jobs that are available in these sectors? These are the jobs that Singaporeans want to do.

How can we more effectively minimise the inherent frictions or the biasness working against achieving these outcomes? We have the data points from our S Passes and EPs – what are the areas of jobs that the companies are asking for EPs and S Passes? These can serve as our "skills demand leading indicator”, where we can plan and curate training programmes and traineeships to target at helping Singaporeans compete and take on those jobs.

Of course, just tightening EP and S Pass alone would not be enough. We need other measures such hiring incentives, training allowances, subsidised traineeships to urge companies to hire more locals. Narrowing the gaps of mismatches and reducing the frictions in job transitions are highly difficult undertakings; we know that. Left to the markets, it may not resolve into the outcomes that we want.

We therefore need concerted efforts involving a combination of measures and workarounds to achieve this; and importantly, with proactive intervention by the Government. And this is now the task of the National Jobs Council, led by Senior Minister Tharman.

Let us not waste this crisis. Let us use the slack in the labour market today as an impetus to help Singaporeans adapt and take on these jobs. Singaporeans, whether they are young graduates or mid-career PMETs, can be up to the task. We just need to equip them, give them the opportunities and importantly, have faith in them. Let us move the needle this time. Sir, I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we debate in Parliament today as we face the "challenge of a generation". We face not just the onslaught of a relentless viral outbreak, but must also deal with the disruptions wrought by COVID-19. We will need to respond robustly to this challenge.

Beyond the shock of COVID-19, our living environment is also seeing secular changes. It has become an increasingly sophisticated world, with a sophisticated population in Singapore. Parliament too reflects this diversity. As we navigate these changes, I believe that we need to maintain a balanced approach, changing with the times but still holding dear to what we find important as Singaporeans. At this point in time, I can think of three key "balances" that we need to strike.

First, balancing between forging ahead versus bringing everyone along. The Wright brothers flew their first flight in 1903, but it took 50 years before air travel became commonplace in the 1950s. Similarly, the steam engine took almost half a century since its invention to disrupt the shipping industry.

Today, a single app, if it is the right one, can change the world within a year or two. Grab first launched in Singapore in 2015, and they quickly revolutionised the way we book private hire cars. Grab has also found its way into our daily lexicon, from getting a ride to getting a bite.

Similarly, Douyin was first launched in China in 2016 and its international incarnation, TikTok, started building steam in international markets soon after in 2017. By first quarter of 2018, TikTok was the number one most downloaded application on Apple's app store and Google Store globally, with 45.8 million downloads worldwide.

Clearly, change has been accelerating at breakneck speed. In the past, breakthroughs in technology would take decades to disrupt economies. Now, only a matter of two to three years. Put it differently, our Pioneers might only see one to two major disruptions for the most part of their career, but the young today will see many disruptions in their lifetime.

As a nation that must constantly adapt to survive and thrive, agility in our economic strategies and the way we govern is crucial. COVID-19 has certainly accentuated this need. Digital economy, digital Government and a smart nation – these are important and have to pick up speed. But this imperative also comes at a price.

Countries like the US and China have huge domestic markets; for example, China's hospitality industry is almost fully recovered with some sectors seeing growth – thanks to domestic consumption. But Singapore is not endowed this way. Therefore, going digital is an important way of helping our businesses to reach markets in the region, if not the world. Going digital will also help our people access a wider pool of international job roles even as they focus on their lives here.

But change is tough. Businesses, for instance, may have different reasons for not digitalising fast enough. Unlike MNCs that have vast amounts of resources at their disposal, SMEs may find themselves lacking the capacity to transform and therefore, risk getting left behind. Our seniors and the more vulnerable, including workers who had a tough start in life, may find themselves unable to acquire the digital skills fast enough to catch up. It can be both painful and frustrating for these businesses and individuals, and we risk losing them.

Does this mean that we should leave them behind as we "chiong" ahead, or should we abandon the idea of transformation altogether, or is there a better, more balanced, way to press on while still maintaining a safe space that allow the smaller ones amongst us to grow strong?

It will be a difficult balance to make. Move too slow, and we risk being overtaken by hungry competitors. Move too fast, and we risk leaving behind a large segment of our population, who face difficulties in adjusting to our rapidly changing society. This is a perennial dilemma that we face, almost cliché to mention. But it will be absolutely critical for us to strike the right balance.

Second, balancing across generations. Singapore is in a time of a changing of generations. The Baby Boomers are now between 56-74 years old, Gen X is now between 40-55 years old, and the Millennials are now between 24 to 39 years old – that includes me, Gen Z, the Centennials, are now aged between eight and 23 years old. At the end of this Government’s term, they will be between 13 and 28.

How do we, as the Government, meet the aspirations of the Millennials and the Centennials? How do we strike the appropriate balance between the wants of the Baby Boomers and Gen X, while making space for the Millennials and Centennials to shape the world which they want to live in?

In 2015, Senior Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam told the world before the St Gallen Symposium that our Founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew never expected Singapore's model of governance to remain this way forever. We cannot be trapped by our history, and we have to keep evolving. He said that the question we have to ask ourselves is how do we evolve in a way that is self-sustaining. How do we do it in a way that protects the liberties that matter most to people? How do we effect change, while safeguarding freedom of religion, and the freedom to aspire in life and achieve what you want through hard work?

These, I think, are questions that this Parliament has to ask ourselves. Millennials and Centennials have an idea of the future we want to live in. We have a certain view on climate change and protecting the environment. We have views on social justice and social mobility which cannot be ignored. We have ideas on work-life balance and social security which, in many regards, may not completely align with the views of the earlier generations.

As we pass laws and policies, there will be trade-offs. The question is, where should the appropriate balance lie? Let me give an example: if this Government chooses to spend more to advance the welfare of retired seniors, then the younger working taxpayers will have to tighten their belts. Conversely, if we choose to spend more on combating climate change and protecting the environment, for example, then something that is important to us today may have to give. In some instances, it can be a zero-sum game, and there will be trade-offs.

This Government has to weigh the different interests, hear the people, and find balanced solutions that care for the older generations, while creating space for the younger generations to shape this nation into one that they can be proud to call home.

Third, balancing openness and fairness, as some put it, between the foreign and local. Allow me to share that our workforce has also changed. Singaporeans today enter the corporate world armed with world-class degrees from our tertiary institutions. They graduate with dreams and aspirations and expect opportunities, promotions, and progression in their careers; rightfully so.

But many of my residents have also become weary over the perceived injustices at work. Enough Singaporeans have begun to feel that our system does not cultivate our local talent as much as it should. We have all heard anecdotes like this – top managerial positions continue to be filled by foreigners who may not be even as academically qualified as our local graduates.

A second time voter told me during my campaign visit that her boss, her boss's boss and her boss’s boss’s boss are foreigners in the MNC that she works in. She could not understand why even the middle management positions are held by foreigners. Another mature resident, who is now in a senior management role in another MNC, told me about how a European candidate with no relevant APAC experience was chosen over him for an APAC role in a previous job application. Is this because Singapore's education system is inferior and therefore cannot produce capable mangers, CEOs and other senior staff?

It would be strange if so. Our education system is globally recognised. However, this Government must continuously evolve it to prepare it for the future. While paper qualifications and examinations are important, soft skills are invaluable to the working world. Most businesses place considerable value on the ability to articulate thoughts and ideas clearly, to communicate effectively, and demonstrate willingness to collaborate and work as a team. Greater emphasis must be placed on such areas.

Let us consider an example. Perhaps, say, we have two equally qualified employees, but there is only one opening for a promotion to a managerial position. Like for like, one can imagine that the candidate who is more willing to work with anyone, more apt at building relationships with clients and more enthusiastic about going out of the way to network, will secure the post. Our education system has to ensure that more often than not, that preferred candidate is a Singaporean candidate.

At the same time, the Government should formulate a plan to cultivate young adults in our workforce for potential leadership positions. I firmly believe we have considerable talent in our young adults. We just need to equip them, guide them and mentor them.

There are many schemes that focus on building technical knowledge and skills. These include the likes of SkillsFuture and TeSA. There are others that help Singaporeans switch tracks like PCP. These are wonderful schemes that allow Singaporeans to adapt in a fast changing world. But, we also need programmes that help push Singaporeans further along their career path – to become leaders.

There is a need for greater transparency to what firms, especially large firms, are expecting of their corporate leaders. Having a framework identifying the key criteria, skills, behaviours and attitude, needed at various levels of management would offer Singaporeans clarity on what they have to do to attain a promotion. The framework could provide a useful roadmap with signposts to better guide younger, high potential Singaporeans.

On top of that, to create a network for mentorships, whereby prominent, successful and more experienced professionals or business leaders can guide younger Singaporeans in a similar profession or industry. Some of these mentors could be older Singaporeans who have made it big and now want to give back. Or they could perhaps be specifically headhunted from overseas by our Government. These mentors can guide the younger Singaporeans along in their careers, offer invaluable advice based on their wealth of experience and provide insights into how they can be better.

There is, of course, no guarantee that by going through the above, one will certainly land himself or herself in that coveted top position. We need to make clear of this. But, it shows our Government and our nation's determination to develop our young and climb the ladder. If we can find a way to cultivate a critical mass of Singaporean talents who not only are technically skilled but also with leadership skills and acumen, the eco-system will be so much healthier and competitive.

Setting stricter quotas and higher minimum wages for Employment Passes are needed to address systemic vulnerabilities. But it is much more meaningful to have employers preferring to hire a Singaporean not just because they are obliged by our laws, but because they believe Singaporeans are worth the premium. In Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] State governance is a complex social task involving many aspects including politics, economy, society, culture and law. The Parliament is a place where laws are made, and an important platform for us to discuss issues affecting Singapore and Singaporeans at present and in the future. One can thus imagine how issues debated in Parliament can be equally complicated.

As the world changes and Singapore progresses, Singaporeans' minds have also become more complex. Similarly, this Parliament has also become more diverse and colourful than before. Hence, it is now even more important for us to build a model of governance that is more holistic and balanced, one that can overcome divisions in political ideologies.

The new term of Parliament has just begun, and I believe that the Government needs to achieve balance in three areas. First, balance between the present and the future, grasp opportunities and speed up transformation. We must maintain the right pace for high speed economic growth, while ensuring that no Singaporeans are left behind, and growth is inclusive. Second, balance the needs of every generation, maintain equity across generations and preserve our social compact. Third, strike a balance between maintaining the openness of our society and safeguarding the interests of citizens. While we welcome foreign talents to enhance our competitiveness, we also need to nurture domestic talents, to ensure that Singaporeans are given the fair employment and advancement opportunities that they deserve. Singaporeans should not be considered less favourably.

Here, I shall give you an example.

Singapore is now actively implementing the Smart Nation initiative to develop the future economy. A digitalised future has become inevitable and our youth can easily adapt to this digitalised environment. Therefore, we need to create an environment where young Singaporeans can maximise their potential.

However, there is still a group of Singaporeans amongst us who need help and they include our seniors. Rapid digitalisation has made life difficult for them. For example, when the Safe Entry QR code was first made mandatory, they could not cope. Although they had mobile phones, they did not know how to scan the QR codes, and some of them did not even dare to visit their doctors.

We all know the importance of Safe Entry. To the young, it is very simple and straightforward, but to the elderly, it was extremely difficult. Thankfully, within a few months, everyone has become familiar with how Safe Entry works, and is now more at ease.

Considering this experience, we should constantly remind ourselves to empathize with the elderly and take care of their needs, even as we charge ahead with full speed. At the same time, I hope the Government can do more to encourage seniors to learn technology in a stress-free way, so that they can make use of technology to aid their daily lives. Besides providing subsidies for senior-centred courses, purchase of devices and mobile data plans, can we also give out a "Digital Conversion Bonus" that is similar to the Digital Resilience Bonus, to encourage seniors to use technology and digital payment?

Going back to my main point, it is not an easy task to achieve balance in governance, to take care of the needs of all communities, to ensure that all of us can complement each other and progress together harmoniously.

(In English): These are questions that we need to answer through community conversations and then translated into legislation in Parliament.

I am constantly reminded that as a Parliament, we bear the responsibility of shaping the future for all Singaporeans. We can – and we should – react to the changing tides around us. However, we also need to be deliberate about designing a future that every Singaporean can look forward to and is confident of achieving for himself or herself.

As Mdm President observed in her Opening Address, politics today must be conducted in a manner which cultivates conversations and offers opportunities for individual citizens to be heard. I agree. We need to listen and engage our citizens actively; it is a two-way traffic.

As a developed nation, our children grow up having dreams they want to fulfil and an idea of the future they desire for themselves, families and children. Many of my residents and volunteers do, and they are willing to put in the effort. They know there is no free pass in life, there are trade-offs. But sometimes, the trade-offs that need to be made for that desired future are not immediately apparent.

Hence, we need to have frequent and earnest conversations with each other. We need to discuss and foster an understanding of the trade-offs for each major decision taken. Better still, forge a consensus on the kind of trade-off we are prepared to make.

So, in determining the kind of Singapore we want, the future we desire and the path and speed to get there, how can we balance the need for agility and the need for meaningful citizen engagement?

I do not have a model answer. But I think being more open to explore difficult issues with Singaporeans is a start. It is one way to show trust in our increasingly sophisticated people. We need to rethink how current citizen feedback platforms are designed and to what extent does it have the power to oblige relevant agencies to review and not just defend policies. And of course, we need to make better use of technology so that we can conduct more sessions to reach out to more people.

The Fourteenth Parliament has our work cut out for us. But we can enlist ideas and advice of Singaporeans from all walks of life, to help us chart a balanced path forward. Today, as we rise from the shadows of the COVID outbreak, I remain confident that we will overcome this "challenge of a generation" and work together to bring Singapore to the next level. We can do it, so just do it!

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion to thank the President for her Address. I am heartened by her encouragement to new politicians, like myself, to continue the good work done by those before us, in shaping an effective and sound Government.

Globally, this year, economies have been paralysed, businesses decimated and livelihoods impacted. The virus has altered the way we live, work and play. Our resident unemployment rate is at 3.9% in the second quarter, faring better than many countries. But, this pandemic is not going away anytime soon. The CEO of renowned pharma giant Merck has said that a vaccine is at least a year away. So, dealing with this crisis will be like running a marathon – there is a finishing line but the run will be long, exhausting and painful.

Today, I wish to talk about some of the lessons we can draw and how good policies must be complemented with good execution for us to emerge from this pandemic, a stronger Singapore. Let me cite two examples.

The Self-employed Person Income Relief Scheme or SIRS was announced in March to support self-employed workers affected by COVID-19. Over 100,000 were identified as eligible for cash payouts of $3,000 for three quarters. Those not included could submit their applications to the NTUC. However, there has been a lot of feedback from residents about not being able to access the relief package. They are upset and perceive the unfairness of the scheme. I will refer to three categories.

First, those whose appeals were rejected and do not know why. Rejected resident applicants received a rejection letter without any reason stated. Although the NTUC website has been upgraded for answers, it was not clear and specific to their own situation. Many were disappointed and described NTUC's response as cold and not helpful.

The second group are those who know why their applications were rejected but cannot come to terms with or do not fully comprehend with the basis. An example is the use of the property annual value criteria of more than $21,000 that excludes residents from getting the relief. Fellow Members in this House had raised this yesterday and one today, and I share their views.

The principle of having "means-testing" as a basis to identify those needing help is logical and NTUC's website stated that this is "consistent with other Government schemes". But COVID-19 relief is not a normal Government scheme and in implementing this blunt tool, it needs to be recognised that it will exclude residents whom the relief measure was intended to help. Additional data points could have been used proactively to identify those falling in the "should help" category so that a portion of this relief measure can be considered, given this challenging period.

The last group are those who do not know why they did not qualify for SIRS and do not understand the eligibility criteria. Some in the category, includes our resident hawkers and freelancers who have not been declaring their net trade income. Whatever their reasons for not doing so, they are hard hit in this pandemic. Perhaps, instead of an outright rejection, they could be brought back into the fold and set on the right path, by nudging them to, for example, start tax filings and adopting e-payments – a great initiative by the IMDA – to qualify for some portion of SIRS assistance. In this way, we can give the needed help and at the same time provide better guidance of their role in the community to file taxes and for the more successful ones in the future, to contribute their share of taxes too.

SIRS aside, let me provide another example from a different angle that also illustrates how leveraging technology can improve policy implementation as a key imperative. This relates to the task at hand of guiding the re-start of construction projects that is underway.

What we need is the ability to do quick tracing, accurately. However, new COVID-19 cases detected at cleared dormitories indicates we still have not yet implemented better capabilities. The TraceTogether app has limitations such as performance consistency across phone brands, inconvenience, and battery usage even after the software fix to slow down battery drain was done. Perhaps, better wearable technologies or tokens could be prioritised for earlier implementation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the broad point I want to make is this: In a crisis, an effective Government like ours, decisively came up with new initiatives and policies to help citizens. Both the SIRS and the effort on the construction sector are great examples of actions that arose out of this pandemic. I am proud that our country was able to dig deep, accessed its reserves and invested almost S$100 billion in relief programmes to help us steer through this crisis.

However, given the rumblings and the noises at the ground, I asked myself why and what is the real gap? My view is that at the heart of the issue in these two seemly unrelated examples is about the importance of good execution where we fell a little short on delivery. Good governance is not just about "Good Policy" but also about "Good Implementation" that goes hand in hand.

Some Members yesterday also spoke about DBS. And I want to share that the bank focuses on what we call "The Job to be Done". It is the maniacal focus on customer experiences, the practice of agility, applying data analytics and incorporating feedback quickly and so that the targeted objectives are done and achieved. This, DBS, took over a decade to try and get it right.

The challenge for Singapore is how do we continue to refine and develop a more citizen-centric governance model, where policies are not sacrosanct but rather a means to an end?

In concluding, I want to say that on any global scale, Singapore executes well. I can attest to that having lived over a decade overseas and raising my family in the major financial centres in the world. Our President in her Opening Address assured Singaporeans that the Government will listen to and examine new ideas, and that it will continue to evolve its policies and models to cater to new circumstances.

I am also heartened that Deputy Prime Minister assured the nation that the Government will take a stance and be open to improvise and adapt. When we do that, I am optimistic that we can beat the crisis together and emerge even stronger as a nation.

Having world class policies and world-class execution, only then, can we have world-class governance. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I continue in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, the year 2020 is an extraordinary year for everyone. Fighting COVID-19 is like running a marathon, we must persevere.

The Government has introduced many good policies to help Singaporeans. However, to help more people, there is room for improvement in terms of policy execution. For example, the SIRS disburses cash pay-outs to the self-employed and has been of great help to them, but some of them are also disappointed and unhappy over perceived unfairness due to minor issues in policy implementation. For instance, some applicants may have been rejected by the Government because they did not meet the eligibility criteria, but were not given a clear explanation. There are also some people who have been impacted by the COVID-19 outbreak but are excluded from the scheme due to overly simplified criteria, and these include residents who live in private properties as well as hawkers who did not file their taxes in time.

In another example, even though the Government has rolled out many measures to facilitate the resumption of construction projects, some migrant workers still ended up being quarantined again due to gaps in policy implementation. This has caused concerns among residents who work in the construction industry. We all hope that the Government can develop more effective technologies for contact tracing and put in place clear guidelines in terms of division of labour and accountability.

In general, we have good policies, but they need to be executed well to truly benefit our people.

Running a marathon is not easy. Only by helping the slower runners, can we come together as one united Singapore and cross the finishing line together.

(In English): With that, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion of Thanks to the President.

In our recent memory, the most severe economic downturn in Singapore had been the Global Financial Crisis. I was then in the Labour Movement. We welcomed the Government’s Resilience Package. It was worth $20.5 billion.

Barely 12 months after the collapse of Lehman Brothers that precipitated the Global Financial Crisis, there was talk about "green shoots". In 2009, Singapore’s GDP did not shrink; it actually managed to grow 0.1%. The following year, our economy powered ahead to double digit growth.

Fast forward to 2020, having battled COVID-19 for about eight months, we see how much more severe the impact is going to be. The Government has already introduced four Budgets of support costing close to $100 billion. Salary support under the Jobs Support Scheme went up to 75% during the circuit breaker, far higher than the 12% under the Jobs Credit Scheme in 2009. Although unemployment has not reached the highs of past recessions, we know this is not a given. We are still in the middle of a raging storm, and it will be sometime before we see "green shoots".

Against this backdrop, there is anxiety and a heightened sense of insecurity about jobs. I understand our workers’ worries. I appreciate it has not been an easy time for many of them. For today’s debate, I want to focus on two groups in particular – workers who perform essential services but do not earn much and PMETs in their 40s and 50s.

For over a decade, we have made concerted efforts to raise wages at the lower end. As part of our social compact, we introduced Workfare in 2007 to mitigate income inequality. NTUC pioneered Progressive Wage Model or PWM, in 2012, which now covers about 80,000 workers in the cleaning, security, and landscaping sectors. In 2016, the Government launched the Silver Support scheme to provide better retirement support for Singaporeans who did not earn as much throughout their working lives. Dr Koh Poh Koon has a slightly different take on the Government's holistic support. He calls it the "Triple Uplift" formula.

Right now, concerns about job and income losses must weigh on us as Parliament debates our next moves in raising wages for workers who earn less. What is our preferred approach to moderating income inequality in Singapore? Specifically, do we continue with the expansion of PWM over time as the NTUC has advocated or do we shift towards a national minimum wage or a living wage, as some parties have called for?

This debate, however, is not new. We have considered it before. Although in Singapore, we have not legislated a single minimum wage across the board, we have in fact implemented features of a "Minimum Wage" through the PWM in several sectors.

Members of Parliament from the Workers' Party acknowledge this too. In March 2015, Mr Gerald Giam urged the Government, and I quote him, "to look into introducing sectoral minimum wages under PWM to more domestic-oriented sectors". On 15 July this year, Mr Yee Jenn Jong said and I quote him, "The Government is also not alien to the concept of Minimum Wage, except that they practise it for selected industries only via the PWM."

At the same time, we have complemented the PWM with Workfare and skills training and the results have been good. In the last five years, workers in PWM sectors have seen cumulative wage growth of around 30%. This is compared to 21% for workers at the median.

Ramli Bin Mohd Hussin, my long-time brother from the Labour Movement, sees first-hand how these schemes have helped workers. As senior operations manager of an environmental services company, he supervises about 120 cleaners. In fact, for many years, Ramli himself worked as a cleaner. Workfare supplemented his wages, but it was PWM that gave him a chance to move up and build a career. At age 47, he has upgraded to a 4-room HDB flat in Yishun. Of his four children, the eldest was encouraged by him to join the cleaning profession. Number two has just completed NS after getting his Polytechnic diploma. Number three started a small business and the youngest is still in school. Ramli also feels a great sense of accomplishment that an ex-offender whom he had been nurturing was recently promoted to Team Leader.

The result of our approach in Singapore is what two local economists, Kenneth Ler and Ivan Png, described as a unique kind of Minimum Wage policy that succeeded in raising wages without apparently reducing employment.

Outside of sectors with PWM, Workfare and the Special Employment Credit or SEC, have also raised wages without risking unemployment.

Take a 60-year-old worker whose employer had been prepared to pay $1,200 a month. When SEC and Workfare are added, the worker actually earns $1,593, 33% more than the employer’s willingness to pay.

Had a national Minimum Wage or living wage been set at, say, $1,600 instead of boosting incomes through SEC and Workfare, would this worker still have a job? Perhaps, if the labour market is very tight but perhaps not when economic conditions take a dive.

Therefore, to uplift workers who earn less, the Government’s preferred approach that is also supported by the Labour Movement, has four prongs.

First, to regularly adjust Workfare to support employability while ensuring that we continue to mitigate income inequality. Members like Mr Gan Thiam Poh support this.

Second, to raise wages in PWM sectors at an appropriate pace, taking care of the need to preserve low unemployment among the workers.

Third, to expand PWM over time to more sectors, taking care to assess the capacity of businesses in those sectors to absorb the change, especially our SME employers.

Fourth, to raise standards of living for lower income workers in other meaningful ways, such as acquiring skills to progress, achieving home ownership, providing access to quality healthcare, education for their children and adequate support in their retirement.

This is a holistic and sustainable approach to uplift our lower income workers, and is an extension of social mobility beyond the schooling years into working life.

We have been building on this approach, steadily and with focus. Earlier this year, we expanded Workfare coverage and raised payouts. A Workfare Special Payment of $3,000 has also helped to cushion the impact of COVID-19 on lower income workers.

Dr Koh Poh Koon called for the universal implementation of PWM. In principle, we are aligned. The real question for expansion of PWM is one of timing.

In the security sector, 38-year-old Raymond Chin has been similarly able to progress to his current position as Senior Operations Manager. However, during a recent conversation, Raymond told me his concerns about security officers earning less this year. When calling for new tenders, clients are asking for fewer workers. Full-time workers have fewer overtime hours or may lose their seniority when displaced. Part-time workers have fewer assignments.

Similar trends are observed in the hospitality and F&B sectors. Businesses are still trying to find a firmer footing. Therefore, any moves to expand PWM into new sectors immediately, in the midst of great uncertainty in the labour market, carries higher risk. Given our overriding priority to preserve jobs, we should proceed with care.

While it may be risky to mandate PWM in more sectors right away, we can still promote its voluntary adoption by progressive employers that are able to do so. To give this effort a bigger push, the Government will work with the tripartite partners to introduce a PWM Mark. Companies that voluntarily pay progressive wages and provide job progression pathways to their lower income workers will be recognised with this PWM Mark. Several sectors, including Food Services and Retail Trade, have the potential to come on board.

For the PWM Mark to work, there must, however, be a broader movement involving society at large. As consumers, we must be prepared to pay slightly more and intentionally support such progressive companies by purchasing their products and services. This will spur more companies to be progressive and adopt the PWM Mark, which in turn will benefit our lower income workers.

I hope Members will agree with me that we must have it in our hearts to consider this a small price to pay for better jobs and income security for those among us who need it most.

Let me turn now to PMETs in their 40s and 50s. Mr Speaker, since this debate started, many Members have spoken passionately about the Singaporean Core and changes they hope to see in our work pass policies – Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Ms Foo Mee Har and Mr Liang Eng Hwa, amongst others. At the same time, they, as well as Members like Ms Jessica Tan and Mr Henry Kwek acknowledge that foreigners are still needed to complement the Singaporean workforce.

In fact, we have adjusted work pass policies regularly and slowed down the growth of EP and S Passes considerably.

In the last five years, 2014 to 2019, the number of EP and S Pass holders has grown on average, less than 9,000 annually. This is less than one third of the average annual growth of 30,400 in the earlier five-year period, and that would be from 2009 to 2014. So, let me say that again. In the first five years, 2014 to 2019, the number of EP and S Pass holders has grown on average, less than 9,000 annually. This is less than one third of the average annual growth of 30,400 in the earlier five-year period.

At the same time, in the last five years, 2014 to 2019, the number of locals in PMET jobs has grown on average, around 35,000 annually. So, we have the 9,000 in growth of EP and S Passes, average annual in the last five years and during that same period, what is the growth in locals in PMET jobs? On average, 35,000 annually. Contrast the 9,000 and 35,000.

In other words, for every new EP or S Pass holder added in the last five years, about four more locals took up PMET jobs. Just think about that.

It should also be noted that throughout this period, the population of PRs has remained stable, at about half a million. It would therefore be wrong to attribute the growth of locals in PMET jobs to an increase in PRs, as some have suggested.

Mr Speaker, in his earlier speech, Mr Leong Mun Wai reminisced about the good old days. But I have a question. Was it really so good?

In the 1990s, about three in 10 locals were in PMET jobs. Mr Leong may not have realised this but it could almost be said at that time to have been the privileged minority. Fast forward to today, nearly six in 10 locals are in PMET jobs. In fact, local PMETs outnumber EP holders – 7:1. For every EP holder that you can find, there are seven locals in PMET jobs.

With COVID-19, the number of EP and S Pass holders has come down sharply. Between January and July this year, it has dropped by 22,000.

While the numbers are moving in the right direction, PMETs in their 40s and 50s are still concerned. I fully appreciate that. In this period of great uncertainty, two questions loom large.

First, when retrenchments become inevitable, will they be targeted by employers because of age and wage-seniority, especially when compared to their younger foreign colleagues? When applying for jobs, will they be passed over, especially with employers having continued access to EP and S Pass holders? Let me deal with these questions in turn.

MOM actively monitors retrenchment practices and looks into how retrenchment exercises are conducted. There are the 10 key questions we ask.

(a) Did the employer implement any other alternatives, such as cost-saving measures before considering retrenchment?

(b) Were efforts made to reskill and re-deploy staff, before embarking on a retrenchment exercise?

(c) Does the business situation warrant a retrenchment?

(d) Did the employers put in place clear criteria to identify workers to be retrenched?

(e) Did these criteria discriminate against any employee on the basis of age, gender, ethnicity or family circumstances?

(f) Did the company provide retrenchment benefits commensurate with its financial position?

(g) In a unionised company, were the selection criteria and retrenchment benefit discussed and agreed to with the union?

(h) Did the company put in place measures to support the workers' transition, for example, engaging WSG or e2i for job assistance?

(i) Did the company communicate its business situation and plans clearly, sensitively and with adequate notice to affected employees?

(j) Lastly, but certainly not the least of it, was the company's Singaporean Core weakened as a result of the retrenchment exercise?

So, 10 questions that we ask. And last and not least of it was the company's Singaporean Core weakened as a result of the retrenchment exercise?

In vast majority of the cases, retrenchments have been conducted fairly and responsibly. Where older Singaporeans have been let go, this has generally been the result of criteria like relevance of skillsets to core functions that the company must retain. This factor explains why in some retrenchment exercises, seniors comprise a higher share. By and large, there has also not been a weakening of the Singaporean Core. In the case of Resorts World, for example, a foreign employee must meet a higher performance bar than his local colleague to be retained. In fact, this is quite an often-seen criterion that companies introduce.

Notwithstanding these reassuring observations, we will remain vigilant. We will also work with tripartite partners to advance sound practices, through updating the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Excess Manpower and Responsible Retrenchment, for example, or the Fair Retrenchment Framework proposed by NTUC.

Besides actively monitoring retrenchment practices, we will intensify other efforts to ensure fair treatment of locals applying for jobs.

In last week's announcement of the tightening of EP and S Pass requirements, one aspect was not prominently reported. We had made clear that in evaluating EP and S Pass applications, MOM will place additional emphasis on whether the employer has kept up its support of local PMETs in its employment. In substance, this achieves what Ms Foo Mee Har would like to see, a tilt in support of local PMETs that goes beyond fair consideration. Among other things, an employer's record in how it handles retrenchment exercises will certainly have a bearing. For example, is an EP or S Pass applicant a replacement for a local who was only recently retrenched? If so, MOM will ask why and turn down the application unless there are very good reasons.

We will also place additional emphasis on whether the employer has been responsive to efforts by the Government agencies to help it recruit and train local PMETs.

Mr Ang Wei Neng supported a balanced work pass policy that is neither too restrictive nor facilitative for employers. He felt that continued access to EP and S Pass holders can help businesses to grow, which in turn expands opportunities for Singaporeans. Businesses, however, should not exploit this access but must instead make serious efforts to build local capabilities. Ms Mariam Jaafar goes further. She calls on employers to look past paper qualifications and consider local job applicants who do not necessarily tick all the boxes, but who can be nurtured with support from Government.

MOM agrees with both of them. This should, in fact, become pervasive, a regular feature of our employment landscape, the norm and not the exception. Therefore, in specific areas of skills shortages and where there is strong interest from locals, we will also assess if agencies like WSG, MAS and IMDA have been able to get an employer on board their many programmes to strengthen the development of local PMETs. This will also have a bearing on their EP and S Pass applications.

Conversely, we take into consideration whether an employer has discriminated against qualified local PMETs. Of all possible infringements, this is what offends Singaporeans most, that they have the qualifications but lost out to a foreign candidate who did not appear to be better.

To curb such unacceptable behaviour, MOM has regularly taken employers to task for practices like pre-selecting a foreign candidate and disregarding qualified local candidates. We agree with Ms Foo that if, in fact, there are equally or better qualified local candidates, it would be only logical that they be given priority consideration. And this is one of the reasons why the company is in Singapore in the first place.

This year alone, 90 employers have had their work pass privileges suspended because of infringements under the Fair Consideration Framework or FCF.

In one instance of a healthcare multinational, investigators found that 26 local candidates had responded to an advertisement on MyCareersFuture.gov.sg. Although seven out of these 26 applicants met the job requirements, none were shortlisted or interviewed. Two candidates were deemed "over-qualified". Other candidates were rejected for not meeting requirements that were not stated in the job advertisement in the first place, for example, six-sigma certification. The company rejected them, saying that they do not have six-sigma. But when we look back at the job advertisement, it did not say six-sigma certification. This company was clearly not serious in considering local applicants.

As a penalty, it will not be able to hire or renew EP holders for 12 months – one full year. Anyone in business knows that this is serious. To stay in business, they will have to recruit more locals, something they should have done all along.

Mr Speaker, I have outlined these additional considerations for EP and S Pass applications, but they are not new. We are re-stating them to remind employers of the need to step up their hiring practices and HR management, and also the efforts they must make to help sustain a business-friendly work pass policy.

At the same time, we will build on the Fair Consideration Framework or FCF to engage more employers. Since 2016, more than 1,200 employers have been scrutinised under the FCF.

To put the number into context, in the last five years, about 40,000 employers have applied for EPs, at least once. So, we have the 1,200 in the last five years but we also have this 40,000. [Please refer to "Clarification by Minister for Manpower", Official Report, 5 October 2020, Vol 95, Issue No 7.]

Some Members, including Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Leong Mun Wai, may not have realised this: firms that are scrutinised have not flouted any rules yet, unlike the example I cited above. Instead, we have identified them through proactive surveillance because of their unusually high reliance on foreigners in their PMET workforce, when compared to industry peers. Until they improve, we will reject or hold back their work pass applications.

At the same time, TAFEP engages them to understand their problems and help them strengthen their hiring practices. For example, we found that one firm dealt, almost exclusively, with high net worth clients from a particular country with language and cultural preferences. So, this company need not have been in Singapore. They could have served these high net worth clients from somewhere else – Hong Kong, for example. Nonetheless, through TAFEP’s advice, this company agreed that non-client-facing roles could be filled by locals.

In another instance, the company had been genuinely unfamiliar with local recruitment channels and welcomed WSG’s assistance. In yet another case, the local office sought special approval from their overseas headquarters to expand recruitment criteria to take into account local conditions. They were in fact grateful to TAFEP for having helped to bring about this change with their headquarters.

In all, 3,200 EP applications have been rejected or withheld by MOM, or withdrawn by employers while they were being scrutinised. But these employers have hired more than 4,800 Singaporean PMETs as a result. In other words, this targeted approach has helped to keep and expand local PMET employment in these firms.

If instead we had chosen to vilify them through a name-and-shame approach, we would have frustrated their efforts to expand local hiring. This is ultimately counter-productive, not advantageous to us. In the case of the company that served high networth clients, it very easily could have gone somewhere else. And all of those opportunities would have been lost to us.

Our alternative approach of scrutinising and engaging employers is highly resource-intensive but in fact, a more effective way to get businesses to reshape their HR practices. This is why MOM plans to engage an expanded group of employers to review their hiring practices. This expanded group will include firms whose Singaporean Core has been weakening; or whose EP and S Pass workforce are overly concentrated from a single foreign nationality source. Through active intervention, we will help them reshape their workforce profiles. We will do this together with economic agencies like EDB and MAS. And as Mr Ang suggested, we will also engage the HR community to do more.

Sir, like many Members, I receive direct feedback from Singaporeans. They write to tell me about specific job application attempts where they felt they had been sidelined, or retrenchment exercises where they felt that they had been treated unfairly. They may also share observations about FCF rules being ignored.

MOM takes all such feedback seriously, as they complement our own proactive surveillance. We investigate thoroughly by interviewing the parties concerned and going through relevant records and exchanges – sometimes, mountains of records – to ensure that the retrenchment and hiring decisions have been conducted fairly.

For example, a whistle blower told us his former employer, an IT consultancy firm, had hired an EP holder through the recommendation of another EP holder who was a friend. Sir, recommending friends for job openings is not by itself wrong. The problem here was that the employer had not considered other possible local candidates as well. This decision was cleared with the General Manager which made it worse. As a penalty, the company will not be able to hire or renew work passes for 18 months – one and a half years. I do not think they will forget such an experience.

I hope these examples reassure Members that where there’s evidence of unfairness, we will not hesitate to hold employers to account and lean on them to do better in future. However, such actions do not always bring satisfaction to the victims. Something is inevitably damaged in the process – the sense of fairness and trust in the organisation's value system.

As Members have pointed out, for every errant employer caught, there are other bad hats – at least one other bad hat – who still try to circumvent the rules. This is why MOM calls on employer groups to also step up. No amount of rules will be enough if employers do not have the shared sense of commitment to fair hiring and responsible retrenchment. No amount of enforcement resources will catch enough employers if they are determined to hide.

What we lose then is not just a job opportunity for a local, but the trust that the system is fair, that the odds were not stacked against people who are trying. The Government cannot do this alone. We need employers to do your part: be fair to locals when you hire or have to retrench.

Mr Speaker, in these uncertain times, there have also been suggestions to use levies and quotas to regulate the number of EP holders.

I would like to share some considerations with Members. At the Work Permit level, we use levies on top of quotas to regulate demand because the numbers are big. At the EP level, where the numbers are not as big, our key objective is to regulate quality. By raising the salary requirements, over time, this sets a higher bar that EP holders must be able to cross to work in Singapore. Think of it like high jump. You raise the bar, and the hurdle is higher. You are going to need more skills, more talent to cross a higher bar. That is what the EP salary requirement is – a high hurdle. The other effect of raising the hurdle is to push EP holders at the lower end, down to the S Pass-level where there are quota controls – something which levies will not do. So, you raise the hurdle; those who cannot cross it, what choice do you have? S Passes. And if the company does not have enough quota, well, then, that is it.

In all past adjustments to EP salary requirements, a good number are downgraded to S Passes.

What about employers who falsely declare salaries to meet the higher bar? The answer must be to strengthen enforcement which we have been doing, and not to withhold the raising of the bar. In fact, in the last five years, we have taken action in over 1,200 cases of false declarations or kickbacks and secured nearly 388 convictions through prosecution.

Sir, raising EP salary requirements helps to improve quality over time and subject more foreign professionals at the lower end to quota controls. To similarly impose quotas at the higher end of EP holders is not unthinkable, but it is probably unwise.

When competing for the most cutting-edge investments and sophisticated activities to be moved to Singapore, we need to give agencies like EDB and MAS flexibility. For this purpose, it is much better to use salary requirements to ensure companies get access to foreign professionals of the right quality and marry them with firm-level commitments to build up local capabilities over time.

Without such flexibility, many of the top-quality investments would have been lost to our competitors and the job opportunities along with them. As several Members have alluded to, there is no shortage of takers ready to eat our lunch. Mr Speaker, I would now like to say a few words in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, Sir, the usual practice at MOM is to adjust the EP and S Pass salary requirements regularly, based on the situation in our local job market. There is only one reason behind these adjustments, and that is to safeguard the livelihoods of Singaporeans.

Take the EP for example – we adjusted the salary requirements in 2017, and in May this year, there was another round of adjustment. However, because there were drastic and rapid changes in the job market over the past few months, MOM had to take further action. Therefore, MOM announced last week that we would further raise the EP and S Pass salary requirements.

Some people may be concerned that the raising of salary requirements for foreigners may result in employers who insist on hiring foreign employees simply raising their salaries. Then we may end up going nowhere. Some Members mentioned this yesterday and suggested that we impose quotas on EP holders to restrict the number of higher-end EP holders working in Singapore. I can understand these concerns.

To impose quotas on EP holders is not unthinkable, but it is probably unwise. Most of the foreign workers in Singapore are primarily Work Permit and S Pass holders. Therefore, MOM uses quotas and levies to regulate the number of such foreign workers that a company can hire.

On the other hand, the number of foreign professionals that come to Singapore on an EP is relatively smaller. They make up less than 15% of PMETs in Singapore. What we are more concerned about is the quality of these EP holders. For example, they may possess specialised skills that can help businesses venture into cutting-edge fields, and may, in time to come, transfer these skills to Singaporeans. Therefore, the Government updates the EP salary requirements to ensure that the foreigners that businesses hire are indeed top-tier talent.

If the expertise and experience of these foreigners are not commensurate with the salary requirements, then they will not be able to obtain an EP to work in Singapore, but will only be able to obtain an S Pass instead.

In past rounds of adjustment to EP salary requirements, a good number of EP applications were not approved as they did not meet the salary requirements. And if the company's S Pass quota was already fully utilised, these foreigners would not be able to work here or get their contracts renewed.

In fact, the number of EP and S Pass holders has already come down sharply. In the first seven months of this year, it dropped by 22,000. In fact, local PMETs outnumber EP holders 7:1.

Nevertheless, I would still urge business owners in these extraordinary times that if they must hire foreigners because of business needs, they should continue to give fair consideration to local jobseekers. Businesses have a duty to grow and maintain a Singaporean Core in their workforce. This is especially critical in the current climate.

In these difficult times, we will place additional emphasis on these considerations and pay close attention to the hiring practices of companies. The reason is simple. We want to remind businesses of the importance of nurturing their local workforce, and help Singaporean jobseekers find good jobs and return to the workforce.

(In English): Sir, I still have a bit to go.